006. PEOPLE V.

BUENVIAJE
CASE: The defendant is accused of the violation of the Medical Act
FACTS: "That on the first of June, 1923, she had no certificate from the Board of Medical Examiners
authorizing her to practice medicine in the Philippine Islands; that on that day she treated and
manipulated the head and body of Regino Noble in order to cure him of ailments from which he pretended
to suffer, the treatment consisting in a `thrust' by means of the application of the hand to the spinal
column; that she for such treatment received and collected from said Regino Noble the sum of P1; that
the said treatment took place in her office situated at No. 712 Calle Asuncion, District of Binondo, City of
Manila, Philippine Islands; that she on or about the first day of June, 1923, and for some time prior to that
date, advertised herself as a `doctor of chiropractic,' in said City of Manila, said advertisement appearing
upon her business cards and in the newspaper `El Debate,' in its issue of April 29, 1923, edited and
published in Manila and in which cards and newspaper advertisement the defendant prefixed the
abbreviation `Dra.' to her name; that she was graduated a doctor in chiropractic on the 13th day of
August, 1919, as evidenced by a certificate marked Exhibit I and issued by the American University
School of Chiropractic of Chicago, Illinois."
DEFENSE: 1. counsel contends that the demurrer to the information should have been sustained on the
ground that said information charged more than one offense. The Medical Law is contained in sections
758 to 783 of the Administrative Code and it is argued that inasmuch as some of the illegal acts with
which the defendant is charged are prohibited by section 770 of the Code and others by section 783, the
defendant is in reality accused of two separate and distinct offenses, namely, illegal practice of medicine
and illegally representing oneself as a doctor.
2. appellant argues in substance that chiropractic has nothing to do with medicine and that the practice of
that profession can therefore not be regarded as practice of medicine. There is no merit whatever in this
contention. Assuming without conceding that chiropractic does not fall within the term "practice of
medicine" in its ordinary acceptation, we have the statutory definition contained in section 770 of the
Administrative Code and which clearly includes the manipulations employed in chiropractic. The statutory
definition necessarily prevails over the ordinary one.
TRIAL COURT: trial court found the defendant guilty as charged in the information and, in accordance
with section 2678 of the Administrative Code, sentenced her to pay a fine of P300, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. From this judgment the defendant appeals to
this court and presents four assignments of error.
(1) WON accused committed more than one offense and
(2) WON chiropractic fall within the term "practice of medicine"

1.

NO.

I. The Medical Law is contained in sections 758 to 783 of the Administrative Code and it is argued that
inasmuch as some of the illegal acts with which the defendant is charged are prohibited by section 770 of
the Code and others by section 783, the defendant is in reality accused of two separate and distinct
offenses, namely, illegal practice of medicine and illegally representing oneself as a doctor.

We cannot accept this view. It may be noted that the Medical Law itself, as it appears in the Administrative
Code, does not declare any of the therein prohibited acts penal offenses. The penal provisions relating
thereto are contained in section 2678 of the Code, which reads as follows:
SEC. 2678. Violation of Medical Law. A person violating any provision of the Medical Law shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred pesos or by imprisonment for not more
than ninety days, or both, in the discretion of the court.
The offense here penalized is "violation of the Medical Law." The statute makes no distinction between
illegal practice of medicine and illegally advertising oneself as a doctor. Both are in violation of the
Medical Law and carry the same penalty. They are merely different ways or means of committing the
same offense and both of these means are closely related to each other and usually employed together.

2.

YES

II. Under the second assignment of error the appellant argues in substance that chiropractic has nothing
to do with medicine and that the practice of that profession can therefore not be regarded as practice of
medicine. There is no merit whatever in this contention. Assuming without conceding that chiropractic
does not fall within the term "practice of medicine" in its ordinary acceptation, we have the statutory
definition contained in section 770 of the Administrative Code and which clearly includes the
manipulations employed in chiropractic. The statutory definition necessarily prevails over the ordinary
one.
The appellant contends that the prohibition in section 783 against the unauthorized use of the title
"doctor" must be understood to refer to "Doctor of Medicine" and has no application to doctors of
chiropractic. Under different circumstances that might possibly be so, but where, as here, chiropractic is
by statute made a form of the practice of medicine, it necessarily follows that a person holding himself out
as a doctor of chiropractic in legal effect represents himself as a doctor of medicine.